Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

""You do not like to see your fellow evolutionists put in a bad light, but you certainly don’t mind putting Creationists in a bad light. Your behavior and your reaction to this video shows your behavior to be hypocritical and inconsistent".

That's rich. You condemn me yet in recent months under other blog posts of yours you have defended the behaviour of Mr Bob Sorensen or censored any posts by myself responding to his attacks against me there. I was reminded of this last night when I reviewed this thread (something you cannot censor but a place where you CAN comment without fear of censorship):viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=240

So WHO is really the inconsistent one?

Interesting how when your average YEC acts in a way that he condemns in others it's perfectly 'OK'.

As mentioned I have occasionally criticised evolutionists on the BCSE community forum. One or two of them appear to prefer insults to discussing science (they may be very busy and discussing science takes time). For instance I criticised Bill Nye there for apparently not saying 'no' to a debate with a PhD colleague of Mr Ken Ham even though he has avoided such a debate."

Think about it! I comment at his blogs questioning his claims and his previous behaviour. I get put on pre-moderation and censored. He then lies about why I was censored. I show him in detail that he is wrong - at the linked thread, calling his bluff. He knows I am speaking the truth and dare not come here to try and justify himself.

So he starts puffing himself up at a hardline Facebook page from which his scientifically challenged mate Sorensen banned me:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman"Well, an atheist that some of you know quite well is at it again. He is still upset that I will not approve his defamatory comments, and went as far as to call me a "fraud" via email. Despite all of the bravado that he displays, he still has not accepted the challenge to debate me that I issued months ago. I would like to see this atheist put his money where his mouth is.http://answersforhope.com/a-challenge-f ... h-roberts/~Jason"

Please send your blog to Brian Thomas, who writes: "It seems that the clearer the evidence is for creation, the more creative and crazy the stories rejecting it become. Specific examples of structures that God optimized—those He perfected—for their roles often highlight evidence in favor of creation ". You also need to point 'Atheism on the Slide' towards it.You need to point out the error of their ways.https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism- ... 1873982784

Petersen: "Christianity does not predict “perfect design"".Thomas: "Specific examples of structures that God optimized—those He perfected—for their roles often highlight evidence in favor of creation".

Comment as made to YEC Jason Petersen, under his new blog post about tonight's big debate:

http://answersforhope.org/preliminary-c ... comment-37JasonThe FULL debate title is 'Is Creation a viable model of Origins in the modern Scientific Era?' (or something very similar to that). You may choose to censor me here but Ken Ham and co cannot censor the agreed debate topic.Some things in science eg dark matter or dark energy are 'up for question'. However, a 4.5 bn year old Earth and an even older wider universe are NOT up for question - sorry. And your accusations against the science community are false - they are not trying to turn science into an immutable and unchangeable authority on every topic. And scientists who are not religious but secular are not pushing pseudo-science - unlike Ken Ham and co. I agree that proclaiming that science has disproven God might be pseudo-science - but few do that (I doubt that Bill Nye does). "Creation scientists have governing presuppositions that The Bible is true, and they will interpret scientific data in light of that fact. A secularist might say, well, that is pseudoscience". They would be correct. Normal scientists do NOT have presuppositions that FORCE a particular interpretation of evidence and/or RULE OUT ON PRINCIPLE other possible interpretations.By the way, what is a 'secularlist'?Given your past record of censoring me instead of trying to rebut my comments, I am also posting this onto the BCSE community forum under 'Conversations with creationists'.Ashley

http://answersforhope.org/presuppositio ... -atheists/From what I have seen of it, presuppositional apologetics appears to be a form of attempted pseudo-intellectual mugging for Jesus. And people like you who endorse it are all the time using fancy logic jargon or accusing opponents of committing undefined 'fallacies' - instead of addressing the content of their arguments. And you regularly fail to give any specific examples of the things you claim are done by 'atheists'. And you censor comments that make you look ignorant or deceitful (like this one).

You are claiming that you have an invisible apologetic that no 'atheist' can possibly handle. And you wonder why your opponents think YECs are cheats and frauds.

Do you think Ken Ham used presuppositional apologetics at the debate with Bill Nye (not subsequenly but on the night itself when millions were watching)? Generally speaking, I don't. The consensus is that he did not win on the night. But I also don't think he would have been the victor if he had used presuppositional apologetics throughout the debate. He would have come across as an insufferable bigot if he had I would suggest.

There have been further blog posts by both. I have posted a couple of further comments under Karen's Part 4 (I do NOT claim to have read all the exchanges nor to have decided who is right in this particular instance - I have rather informed Karen of my personal experiences online of what happens when I attempt in a sustained manner to criticise the claims that are made by Petersen and Sorensen in their blogs and facebook posts).